“This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed.
Under these circumstances, it’s hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?
In the last six months, AIG has received substantial sums from the US Treasury. I’ve asked Secretary Geithner to use that leverage and pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole.”
AmericaBlog had an idea on how to address the AIG bonus issue…
A little ‘creative thinking’ for a Monday Morning….
Yet another reason why Universal Health Care will be a giant debacle. Because the government is now footing the bill for AIG, they’re claiming the right to dictate terms (not necessarily an unreasonable demand.)
Once goverment starts footing the bill on health care, how long till they start dictating diet, excercise, and lifestyle choices?
Under these circumstances, it’s hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay.
That is a hard thing to understand. The next question should be obvious, but I’ve yet to see anyone attempt an answer: How does AIG award bonuses? What’s the basis for them?
We’re seeing plenty of implications that the employees receiving the bonuses don’t deserve them. And, of course, it’s painful to see taxpayer money going to people who ran AIG into the ground. But couldn’t some reporter somewhere ask this bone simple question?
SaveFarris: “Yet another reason why Universal Health Care will be a giant debacle.”
“Once goverment starts footing the bill on health care, how long till they start dictating diet, excercise, and lifestyle choices?”
It’s been decades in Canada and I’m still not forced at gunpoint to exercise.
(Although that would be funny to watch. Imagine a COPS-like show with armed SWAT teams busting down doors and forcing people to drop the twinkie and do jumping jacks.)
Aren’t there divisions of AIG that are profitable? If so, why should the heads of those divisions be cut out of bonuses because the of the ones who screwed up with credit default swaps?
The bottom line is this is just more posturing on Obama’s part. If he was so concerned about the American taxpayer he would have vetoed a spending bill that contained $8 billion in pork barrel spending in addition to harping on about $165 million in AIG bonuses.
Wow. What a leap Farris. How did you make that weak connection. I thought a better analogy for you would have been:
“When we conservatives were screaming about welfare mothers with mercedes, you liberals didn’t care, now that its fat rich white guys enriching themselves with government welfare money its a different tune.”
Instead you stretched to make some stupid nationalized health care boogeyman bullshit talking point that makes no sense and is completely fabricated.
Let’s examine your argument:
1. Because the government is now footing the bill for AIG, they’re claiming the right to dictate terms. If health care…
2. ???
3. Concentration fat camps.
Last point, does the entity that foots the bill now for health care dictate terms?
I don’t know Jay, why don’t you do your research before you post a speculative piece like that? Further research you can do: were bonuses linked to general profitability of AIG in the past or to individual departments. How much bonus money did these people make off the short term looting that when called led the company to near bankruptcy and why should they now be able to divorce the corpse now that the cash cow is dead?
Farris seems to be making his national health care arguments not based on observation of any actual national health care plan currently in practice. Which is sort of amusing.
On topic though! Regarding Yankee Jay’s point, it seems to me the profitable divisions ought to be paying partially for the upkeep of the non-profitable divisions, so no, they shouldn’t be entitled to their bonuses at the moment. Admittedly I’m mostly a layman in this sort of thing, but the less we’re dumping into the hole, the better, it seems to me.
As far as the howling about the pork… for goodness sakes, you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. Leaving aside the fact that one man’s pork is another’s worthy project, it’s there, it’s always going to be there and it’s probably never going to go over two percent of any given bill. There are better things to focus on.
SaveFarris! You ditched the last thread on health care after every single one of your arguments against universal health care went up in flames and now here you are grasping at any straw you can.
Money talks and bullshit walks!
Give them money. No! Take it back.
We’ll let them have it with strings attached. No!
We will give you money but we want the company. No!
You can keep the money but we tell you what to do. No!
We’ll suggest to you what to do. No!
This kiddie administration belongs in a sandbox!
one man’s pork is another’s worthy project
This is the truth. Every single one of Bizarro President John McCain’s twitters had me thinking: yeah, that seems like something we should actual research or invest money in to.
this is just more posturing on Obama’s part.
No Jay. It’s you who is posturing. You’re pretending you’re offering an informed opinion. You ask, rather than answer, the question: aren’t there profitable divisions at AIG? Don’t the people in those divisions deserve their bonuses?
You don’t know, do you?
If he was so concerned about the American taxpayer he would have vetoed a spending bill that contained $8 billion in pork barrel spending
Posturing? Posturing is pretending that $7.7 billion in earmarked funds in an omnibus spending bill is all “pork barrel spending” without taking time to say whether any of the programs funded are wasteful or worthwhile.
Don’t you have anything at all to do?
Psh. I oughta read the whole thread before I let Jay’s tirades get me all worked up. Parthy beat me to the punch, point by point.
But yours was funnier.
As far as the howling about the pork…
You do realize that 45% of all the earmarks were for Republican districts, right?
Jay? Here’s your answer:
The bonuses in question are for the financial products unit.
Next.
The government of the UK is apparently “posturing” also, Jay:
Cenk Uygur posts in the Huffington Post today:
Obama and the fake outrage over the AIG bonuses.
Read the whole thing.
Full disclosure: This is an opinion piece.
“Once goverment starts footing the bill on health care, how long till they start dictating diet, excercise, and lifestyle choices?”
Is everything an apocalypse with conservatives?
“If the government takes over health care, eventually they will tell you what you can eat!”
“If we allow gays to get married, eventually we have to allow pedophiles to get married to giraffes!”
“If we continue embryonic stem cell research, eventually we’ll have to allow scientists to cut open your kindergarteners!”
“If we stop renditioning and torturing people without charge, terrorists will smash all our buildings and rape our women!”
“If we don’t stop Obama’s economic policies, the UNITED STATES WILL BE DESTROYED!!!”
Seriously, folks. Suck on this oxygen for a bit and stop wetting the bed. I thought it was us liberals who were supposed to be knee-jerk cowards.
Quaker, it’s posturing because Obama voted for the TARP legislation which pretty much came with no strings attached. For him to start hemming and hawing about finding ways to block bonuses via legal means either:
A. He had no clue as to what kind of bill he was voting for
or
B. He’s posturing.
He’s a smart man, so I won’t go with option A. I’ll go with option B.
As far as the howling about the pork… for goodness sakes, you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. Leaving aside the fact that one man’s pork is another’s worthy project, it’s there, it’s always going to be there and it’s probably never going to go over two percent of any given bill. There are better things to focus on.
And what percentage of the bonuses in question are part of the TARP funds? I mean, it’s not a lot. Aren’t there better things to focus on? It’s funny. $8 billion in taxpayer money is no big deal. But $165 million is. Oh and who was that guy who said, “Words mean something” when he was attacking Sarah Palin over her supposed hypocrisy regarding earmark reform? Who was that guy again? Can you remind me?
Aren’t there better things to focus on?
You’re looking at it in terms of dollar amount. What Obama, and many Americans, are going to see is that any amount of their money is being spent to reward the greedy or incompetent executives who are partially responsible for the recession.
You can call it pork all you like, but if that $8 billion can be shown to be going towards projects that are helping the average American, it will be forgiven. There’s so little defense for giving these AIG executives their bonuses…which you know, Jay, because you attempted one (”Maybe these bonuses are for the good executives!”) and had it shot down in a little over an hour.
SaveFarris: Once goverment starts footing the bill on health care, how long till they start dictating diet, excercise, and lifestyle choices?
You really like reductio ad absurdum, don’t you?
Jay,
When the TARP was passed there was supposed to be oversight as well as a limit on compensation. And AIG was actually done outside the TARP funds IIRC.
Jay: Aren’t there better things to focus on? It’s funny. $8 billion in taxpayer money is no big deal. But $165 million is.
Says the guy who’s harping on “pork” in a trillion dollar bill.
You’re looking at it in terms of dollar amount.
You’re damned right I am. We use the terms “million” and “billion” interchangeably as they don’t have much difference and they do. Think of it in terms of time. If you spent a dollar a second, you would go through $1 million in 11 days. If you spent a dollar a second, it would take you 33 YEARS to go through $1 billion. It’s huge.
What Obama, and many Americans, are going to see is that any amount of their money is being spent to reward the greedy or incompetent executives who are partially responsible for the recession.
Then Obama shouldn’t have voted for legislation that gave away TARP funds with pretty much a blank check attached. It’s like giving your kid $100 no questions asked to go to the mall and then complaining when he comes home after having spent the money on video games instead of books or clothes.
You can call it pork all you like, but if that $8 billion can be shown to be going towards projects that are helping the average American, it will be forgiven.
Oh here we go. “If it would only help ______” then its ok. That’s the lamest form of defense for such nonsense that exists. There’s no shades of gray here. These earmarks are nothing more than payola, used basically to bribe members of Congress to vote for certain bills and to offer as payoffs to those who contribute to their campaigns.
There’s so little defense for giving these AIG executives their bonuses…which you know, Jay, because you attempted one (”Maybe these bonuses are for the good executives!”) and had it shot down in a little over an hour.
I didn’t attempt shit. I was playing devil’s advocate. My view is that there shouldn’t have been a bailout at all. That’s why I’m not getting my panties in a bind over these bonuses. The jackasses who signed off on this are to blame, not AIG. No bailouts, no undeserved bonuses. They’d all be out of a job.
Obama made his bed. Now he has to lie in it.
AIG = Allowing Irreversible Greed.
AIG = All in Greed.
AIG = Arn’t I Greedy.
AIG = A$#holes, in general.
This is sick. Why in the world are we helping these companies that keep sending millions to people who do not know how to run a company? They cry yet get paid millions on the “average joes” taxes. Furthermore, I fear this is just the tip of the iceberg. Look what Enterprise rent-a-car did to get bailout funds:
http://www.butasforme.com/2009/02/25/alert-enterprise-rent-a-car-may-have-fired-employees-as-fake-evidence-when-lobbing-for-bailout-money/
Not to make excuses for these people, but the bailouts are making crooks out of everyone that touches the money.
When the TARP was passed there was supposed to be oversight as well as a limit on compensation.
The limits on compensation applied only to senior executive officers which would be the top five highest paid executives at the company.
Jay:My view is that there shouldn’t have been a bailout at all. That’s why I’m not getting my panties in a bind over these bonuses.
IOW, let’s not deal with reality as it is (bailout has been given). Let’s just bitch about what should have been done before and continue to harp on that.
Now I don’t disagree with you that the bailout shouldn’t have happened as it did. If nothing else, it should have come from the very inception with all sorts of conditions and requirements (WILL be used to start lending again, will NOT be used for bonuses, etc.). But it’s out there and that is the situation that has to be dealt with.
Not as easy as continuing to whine over a past point but then, being an adult isn’t easy most times.
These earmarks are nothing more than payola, used basically to bribe members of Congress to vote for certain bills and to offer as payoffs to those who contribute to their campaigns.
Cite? Or is this assertion one of those common knowledge sorts of things?
Aside from which, ‘bribing’ members of congress to get on board is a part of the horse-trading that goes on in a democratic system. It’s like the engine is working fine and you’re pointing at the exhaust and howling ‘LOOK AT ALL THE WASTE!!!’
Less than 2 percent going to maybe less-than-urgent projects is fine with me. Two dollars going to these crooked chumps in the form of bonuses is not.
These earmarks are nothing more than payola, used basically to bribe members of Congress to vote for certain bills and to offer as payoffs to those who contribute to their campaigns.
That’s a pretty broad brush there, Jay. You know this how?
Obama made his bed. Now he has to lie in it.
Uh, no. Mr. Obama went along with the Bush administration’s plan to give AIG some money to try to save the company. Because he did that, now you say he has to STFU when company execs put that money in their own pockets?
That’s weird, Jay.
“Once goverment starts footing the bill on health care, how long till they start dictating diet, excercise, and lifestyle choices?”
Umm, many employers that provided health coverage already do this. Some companies will fire you if they find out you’re a smoker, for example.
Why is it free-market determinism if a company does this, but dirty nasty socialism if the government, while providing people with health care, told them they had to lose weight? Seems perfectly reasonable to me, especially if it took the form of incentives for people who took care of themselves paying less than those who didn’t.
And yeah, the bank bail-outs began under Bush II. Please stop trying to re-write history, wing-nuts.
Once goverment starts footing the bill on health care, how long till they start dictating diet, excercise, and lifestyle choices?
That analogy doesn’t work at all. A better analogy would be them dictating about how hospitals are run. They’re telling AIG what to do, not AIG’s customers.
For the same reason it’s perfectly fine for your employer to say who you can and cannot have sex with but it’s wouldn’t be okay for the government to do the same thing.
Also, what’s the worst thing that your employer can do to you if you fail to follow their rules? Suspend you? Dock your pay? Fire you? All of those are probably bad things, how bad would depend on the individual. The government has a couple of more coercive measures at its disposal. Just look at the post about a week ago where some Texas legislators are trying to require people seeking a no-fault divorce to attend counseling on their own dollar prior to allowing the divorce to go through.
I would love it if the only threat that government represented through health care was that they’d require people to exercise. If you think that’s the kind of thing this government is likely to try, you haven’t been paying attention. They’re much more subtle and far more destructive.
Ah, unnamed, subtle, destructive plots all disguised as universal health care. We’re heading in to tinfoil hat country, people.
No. We entered tinfoil hat country the first time someone emailed Clinton’s “death list” to their AOL friends. We ventured into the left hand side of Tinfoil Hat Country the first time someone said that President Bush could detain anyone for ever and ever and that FEMA hated black people. We’re just going back over ground already trod.
These earmarks are nothing more than payola, used basically to bribe members of Congress to vote for certain bills and to offer as payoffs to those who contribute to their campaigns.
In this case, it is to garner support from Republican members of Congress.
When the TARP was passed there was supposed to be oversight as well as a limit on compensation.
And let’s not forget who drew it up in the first place.
Oh… sweet Jeebus. AIG already paid most of the bonuses. Only way the taxpayers are getting that money back is when the Obama administration pays AIG $29,840,000,000.00 instead of the $30,000,000,000.00 it was going to.
You’re doing a heck of a job Timmy.
I’m glad we agree that your argument is insane.
someone said that President Bush could detain anyone for ever and ever
And this was disproved, when, exactly?
I believe the bonus payout excesses at AIG are just the tip of the iceberg of what is happening with the other Wall Street bailouts including Bank of America. Working productive Americans are bailing out the same crooks that destroyed our economy along with 45% of the wealth in the world. Now the American taxpayers and our posterity will be forced to live a far lower standard of living with reduced prosperity and opportunities due to the accumulated national debt to fund the bailouts and once again we will pay the price.
Washington has bailed out the banks, Wall Street & their Washington special interests and much of the cost is added to the national debt to by paid by this and future generations while real estate and investments continue to fall. I believe Washington plans to monetize the debt in future years while they tax and destroy our remaining wealth by depreciating the dollar.
To stop this wealth attack, the Campaign to Cancel the Washington National Debt By 12/21/2012 Constitutional Amendment is beginning now in the U.S. See: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=67594690498&ref=ts
It’s like the engine is working fine and you’re pointing at the exhaust and howling ‘LOOK AT ALL THE WASTE!!!’
No. It’s like the engine is working fine, but somebody doesn’t like the way it looks and seeks to replace with an entirely new engine.
Not as easy as continuing to whine over a past point but then, being an adult isn’t easy most times.
Oh you mean like whining about legislation you signed on to now that it contains provisions you don’t like, such as AIG giving bonuses to executives?
Mr. Obama went along with the Bush administration’s plan to give AIG some money to try to save the company. Because he did that, now you say he has to STFU when company execs put that money in their own pockets?
Oh please. “He went along with the plan.” He VOTED FOR IT? If he wanted more stringent controls over executive pay and bonuses, he should have offered amendments to do so. If he didn’t get them into the final legislation, he could have voted against it.
Oh and we now know that the White House knew what happened with the previous billions AIG received and had already designated the bonuses even as the additional $30 billion was being given to them. So the White House knew about the bonuses already.
So as I said: POSTURING.
Oh please. “He went along with the plan.” He VOTED FOR IT?
Uh. Yeah.
If he wanted more stringent controls over executive pay and bonuses, he should have offered amendments to do so. If he didn’t get them into the final legislation, he could have voted against it.
That baby/bathwater approach to legislation is really more of a Republican thing, isn’t it?
At any rate, I still don’t see why you think Mr. Obama is “posturing” if he doesn’t like the fact that AIG executives are pocketing some of the bailout cash. One can be in favor of sending Mr. Jeter up to bat and still be upset if he chooses to spend his time at the plate sending text messages.
So as I said: POSTURING.
I said it too: POSTURING.
SFC B: For the same reason it’s perfectly fine for your employer to say who you can and cannot have sex with…
No is isn’t. For your employer, yes. And that is unfortunate and beyond words stupid. But outside the military I’d like to see any employer seriously try to get away with that.
SFC B: We ventured into the left hand side of Tinfoil Hat Country the first time someone said that President Bush could detain anyone for ever and ever
Yeah? Tell that to José Padilla. If Bush couldn’t it wasn’t from lack of trying.
Jay: Oh you mean like whining about legislation you signed on to now that it contains provisions you don’t like, such as AIG giving bonuses to executives?
The giving of bonuses was specified in the legislation? You want to show just where? Yeah, thought so.
Sean,
“You want to show just where?”
“While the Senate was constructing the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an
Here’s the rest. My post got cut off for some reason.
“While the Senate was constructing the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an
Screw it.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/dodd-cracks-aig—time/
SFC B says: “For the same reason it’s perfectly fine for your employer to say who you can and cannot have sex with but it’s wouldn’t be okay for the government to do the same thing.”
… Huh?
Are there companies in the State that tell you who you can or can not have sex with?
Are there companies in the State that tell you who you can or can not have sex with?
Just THE company. SFC B works for the military, the only employer that I know of that tells you who you can sleep with (thanks Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell!). SFC B continues to take his very personal experiences and assume that they’re absolutely correct for every other person in America.
One can be in favor of sending Mr. Jeter up to bat and still be upset if he chooses to spend his time at the plate sending text messages.
Poor analogy. It would be like Jeter going to the plate and then complaining about striking out because he was too busy sending text messages.
The giving of bonuses was specified in the legislation? You want to show just where? Yeah, thought so.
Where did it have to be specified? If it’s not prohibited by the legislation then it’s ok.
Of course, we now learn that it was none other than Chris Dodd who inserted the amendment into the stimulus bill President Obama signed that specifically allowed any executive compensation package negotiated before February 11, 2009 to be paid out.
So:
A. The White House knew about the bonuses weeks ago
B. The stimulus package specifically allowed these bonuses to be paid out.
ON THE JOB!
Poor analogy. It would be like Jeter going to the plate and then complaining about striking out because he was too busy sending text messages.
What?
So now the Obama administration is Jeter and the strikeout is the bonuses and the text messages are, um….what now?
That’s an even worse analogy.
Point remains, Jay, nothing that the Obama administration has done to date makes complaining about AIG execs lining their own pockets into “postur…” uh, “POSTURING!”
The only posturing is being done by people who are suddenly experts on contracts and employment law because they read one post on a blog somewhere.
william: Screw it.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/dodd-cracks-aig—time/
Nice try, but no. At worst that describes Dodd putting in a loophole that kept bonuses from being subject to the tax on bonuses that he was putting in. It does not show that there was legislation that contains provisions for giving bonuses to AIG executives, which is what was actually being claimed. Find someplace where the legislation said “AIG should get bonuses” or admit that claim is wrong.
Jay: Oh you mean like whining about legislation you signed on to now that it contains provisions … such as AIG giving bonuses to executives?
Jay: Where did it have to be specified? If it’s not prohibited by the legislation then it’s ok.
Ah, so you’re admitting your first claim was bogus.
Jay: we now learn that it was none other than Chris Dodd who inserted the amendment into the stimulus bill President Obama signed that specifically allowed any executive compensation package negotiated before February 11, 2009 to be paid out.
No.
So at best the claim is he exempted them from a tax. NOT that he said they should be paid out.
Whether or not the bonuses were legal is sort of beside the point for me. I think I’d still be just as disgusted, legal or illegal.
Just throwing that out there.
Exactly so, Parth. Bonuses should be paid for performance. Not for lack of performance, or putting the company in the shitter.
Like it or not, somebody is gonna get a bonus they don’t deserve. Can we move on now?
Duros: Bonuses should be paid for performance. Not for lack of performance, or putting the company in the shitter.
Wholeheartedly agree. And while knowing nothing of the details of the contracts that provide for these bonuses, I can’t believe there isn’t SOME level of performance required to get them (as is standard practice for bonus agreements). It makes the “shrug, nothing we can do” explanations offered seem suspect.
You might want to pay close attention to your employee handbook or check with your HR department then. I’d be willing to bet that any “large enough” employer will have rules regarding inter-office relationships, supervisor-supervisee relationships, etc. Guess what? That’s an employer telling you who you can and cannot have sex with. Hell, that’s an employer telling you who you can and cannot have even the appearance of a personal relationship with in some cases.
I’ll concede this point. Although I have worked for a Fortune 500 company where I dated my boss and all we had to do was sign a little document for HR, but I assume that there are other companies in other circumstances where you are not allowed to sleep with individuals where there are power relationships.
But this is a complete distraction. Your entire argument against universal health care is a straw man: companies can fire people if you do certain things, this would be bad if the government did it, therefore the government might ask you to lose weight.
SFC B:Texas legislators are trying to require people seeking a no-fault divorce to attend counseling on their own dollar prior to allowing the divorce to go through.
A conservative Texas legislator. And it has practically 0 percent chance of passing. Another straw man as it has no relation whatsoever to universal health care or any of the people that wish to see it implemented. If anything this could be used as an argument in favor of the legislative process as stupid ideas like this whither in the light of public outcry.
On the job.
Right. And where was Captain Teleprompter last week on this issue? You know, before the bonuses were actually paid out?
Obama Knew About AIG Bonuses Day Before They Were Paid
President Windsock. “The wind is blowing thataway fellas…!”
No, it’s not a strawman, it’s a slippery slope damnit. And it’s a slope that has been fallen down before.
The government might “ask” you to lose weight now, but it doesn’t “ask” for long. After a while is transitions to “tell” before it moves to “force”. Our government has developed a compulsive need to meddle in our lives, and already has the scope to do so in far too many ways. Granting it the authority to do so over most everyone’s health choices is just giving it even more access. On a practical, personal level it doesn’t concern me whether universal health care comes to fruition. I make enough money to be able to afford health insurance which will cover my vices and the likely needs of my family (assuming inflation doesn’t kill my buying power while taxation eats at my margins). However, the people that the inevitable behavior restrictions which will come with national health care are those who are not as well off as I am.
For example, how long do you think taxpayers will like footing the bill for fat people? Obesity and its related health issues is like health care expense #1. Guess what? The most obese segment of America is the lower-income folks because a lot of cheap food isn’t very healthy. So, I ask again, how long will Jim and Jane Taxpayer like thinking about how their tax dollars are paying for hypertension meds for Poory McFatterson? How long after universal health care will it be before some congressman is on the floor of the house talking about how we need to reduce the money being spent on health care and we can do that by requiring all people over a certain BMI to have gastric-bypass surgery or pay for their own care over a certain amount? Five years? 10?
Quite honestly Michael Over Here, I question whether you and those who agree with you on this subject have any concept of unintended consequences or bureaucratic inertia. As of right now we cannot even trust that our government will read contracts of employees of companies the government is spending hundreds of billions of dollars to buy. Why on Earth should we trust them to be able to manage our personal wellness decisions?
And speaking of Health Care, how about the Community-Organizer-in-Chief’s awesome plans to make injured veterans pay for their own medical care?
He’s probably still pissed at our troops for all that “air-raiding of villages and killing of innocent civilians” he was forced to speak out on when he was campaigning.
SFC B: it’s a slippery slope damnit. And it’s a slope that has been fallen down before.
I take it that you know that ’slippery slope’ is another logical fallacy. I guess I see the incredibly popular and well run programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the national park system as a template for what the government is capable of. None of those have slipped in to some evil government organization of bureaucratic suits and black helicopters.
However, the people that the inevitable behavior restrictions which will come with national health care are those who are not as well off as I am.
Some of these people “who are not as well off” are more than likely the some of the tens of millions of Americans that currently don’t have any health insurance. Or the tens of million more Americans who are under-insured. The system is currently devastating for a large percentage of Americans and even the worst run universal health care system in the world would be an incredible improvement.
In fact, going beyond fat people where you could at least argue a bit about personal responsibility. In the current system if you’re poor, without health insurance and born with any type of illness you’re just not covered.
For example, how long do you think taxpayers will like footing the bill for fat people?
Have you seen congress people? They’re not exactly svelte. I think fat people have rather decent representation in the US government. Plus if you have private insurance you’re subsidizing others. It’s how insurance works!
any concept of unintended consequences or bureaucratic inertia.
I’ve lived in two countries with universal health care, the systems were pretty different. Both are incredibly popular and well run. Were there small problems in each that were occasionally frustrating? Absolutely. But both were fantasy lands compared to the ridiculous hell-scape that is the current American system. I speak from personal family experience on that one too, I’d go in to specifics but your track record on responding to personal stories has been to be an ass.
I look at what 99% of citizens in the OECD have and I know that America is capable of doing the same for it’s citizens. I’d say someone has to have a pretty low opinion of America and Americans to think that we can’t put in to place a system that’s as good or better than Australia’s or New Zealand’s or Japan’s or Canada’s or Germany’s or France’s etc, etc, etc, etc.
[...] is what our boy OW said about President Obama getting all worked up over AIG bonuses. Of course, I called it for what it [...]
Um…. it depends on if you are in a “at will” state in an at will state an employer can fire you for “No cause”.
Just as you can’t be fired for the color of you skin (if it can be proven) An employer can fire you for no reason at all.
“Our boy”?
Stay classy, Republicans.
It’s not a logical fallacy if it actually happens. You will never go bankrupt betting that the US government will overreach.
These are the same Americans who will be most hurt every day by the inevitable increases in sales taxes and vice taxes that will follow universal health care. Why do you hate the poor so much?
I call bullshit on this. Try less than 1% of Americans. It is a lot of people, but its not a large percentage. So, because less than 1% of Americans file for bankruptcy with health care costs as a contributing factor, I need to lose some more of my money, and put some of my liberty at risk? Bullshit.
So, you’re trusting that no one in congress will be a hypocrite? Good luck with that.
Indeed. And if I am not happy with my coverage I can switch providers or opt out entirely and pocket the money. It’s how choice works!
When it’s your life-saving treatment being denied because it’s not cost-effective, and you’re not allowed to pay for it through private insurance that doesn’t strike me as a “small” problem.
Given your track record of being a drama-queen and trying to use you and your family’s stories to garner pity for the situation I’m thankful for your discretion.
As I said. Drama-queen. I am curious though how you were able to survive the ridiculous hellscape of American health care to be with us here today commenting. Might be a nice inspirational story.
I’d say someone has to have a pretty low opinion of America and Americans to think that we couldn’t develop a better health care system which costs less if we stopped with the clusterfuck of public and private systems and actually tried to let people make their own choices regarding their health care.
I call bullshit on this.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=uninsured+americans
Try 46.6 million Americans as of 2006, I’m sure the number has risen dramatically since the beginning of the economic crisis.
http://www.cbpp.org/8-29-06health.htm
Why do you hate the poor so much?
You’ve got nothing.
Try 46.6 million Americans as of 2006, I’m sure the number has risen dramatically since the beginning of the economic crisis.
And what percentage of those 46 million can afford to purchase health insurance but choose not to? That’s the magic number that no one has bothered (or been able) to track down. Subtract those people from 46 million and you have the number of Americans who don’t have insurance because they can’t afford it. THOSE are the people we need to target for help.
I don’t believe that people who can afford coverage for them and their family but choose instead to spend their money on a home theater setup, or a Jet Ski, or a vacation in Hawaii, merit a lot of sympathy.
make injured veterans pay for their own medical care
Hell, even Jon Stewart thinks Obama has lost his mind over this one.
make injured veterans pay for their own medical care
From everything I’ve read on this it looks like nearly every single Democrat is against it also. I’m surprised anyone anywhere even floated this idea but fortunately it’s dead on arrival.
The conservative position on health care really only makes sense if you consciously ignore any data.
The conservative position on health care really only makes sense if you consciously ignore any data.
Just like everything else.
DAMNIT!
This is getting ridiclious.
See if something Quaker mentioned fixes this…
Okay, we get what you’re trying to quote.
What were you gonna say?
Nope.
If I mistype a quote I apologize, just retyping, not cut and pasting.
That’s not what I was talking about. You had said that the lack of health care was devastating to a large percentage of Americans. I’m calling bullshit on it being “devastating” because you didn’t define it. Not having health insurance isn’t devastating in and of itself. I was using the 1.4 million Americans who filed for bankruptacy last year who listed health care costs as a factor in their bankruptacy. And I can’t split how many of those were filing for bankruptacy expressly because of the costs of healthcare, and how many were filing because that people with serious illnesses and injuries necessitating expensive health care tend to not be able to earn as much to begin with. I’m sure that there are millions more of Americans who are struggling because of health care costs, but I’d be shocked if that number was 10% of your 46,000,000. If you don’t have health insurance, and you have no need for health insurance, or even prefer to pay out of pocket, I fail to see how this constituties being “devastated” like you’re claiming it does. Even assuming that 10% of those 46 million are in dire straights because of it, I still fail to see why the solution to that problem is to restrict the liberty and reduce the take home pay for millions of other Americans.
Why? Why must we “help” those people? What if they don’t want or need our help? How many of those millions of uninsured who cannot afford any sort of health insurance are perfectly healthy people in no forseeable need of health insurance?
I can’t imagine that coming from GEN(R) Shinseki. He would never, ever come up with a hair-brained idea which managed to tick off an entire branch of the military to accomplish nothing of value.
Nope. Never.
Excuse me, I have to go shave my hat.
Really? Your argument is that a large percentage of people without health insurance prefer not to have it or don’t feel terrible consequences by not having it? We’re just going to disagree on this one. Unfortunately for you a majority of Americans disagree with you and want the government more involved in the health care.
Well, since we do not have 46,000,000 in the poor house or bankruptacy courts I’d have to say that yes, not all of them are feeling terrible consquences of their situation.
Sure they do. Right up until it actually happens.
Given the performance of the Obama Administration so far on the task of governing I really shouldn’t be too worried about them getting this clusterfuck through.
we do not have 46,000,000 in the poor house or bankruptacy courts
Again, you’ve got nothing.
Given the performance of the Obama Administration so far…
Yeah, it’s been terrible! Americans hate their new president sooo much.
Yup, because with universal health care it will never be the government’s choice whether your life, or in this case the life of your child, is worth it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7956845.stm
But my slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy?